Josh wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 2:46 pm
Adam's first command was to tend the garden and to keep it, and then to "rule over" the animals. I don't see where this command was ever negated.
More importantly, it is hard to imagine that God wants Christians to live a life where they don't care about all what he created, and instead are comfortable destroying the wonderful earth God created for us - does God really want us to engage in practices that cause mass extinctions, desertification, drying up aquifers, mining petrochemicals and then burning them to spew toxic smoke, spraying fields down with huge amounts of pesticides just to get a slightly higher yield, and so on? That seems very far from the design that God created in the perfect Garden of Eden. I don't think God wants Christians to turn a blind eye to dumping toxic chemicals or raw sewage into waterways, spreading diseases, and causing all kinds of illnesses.
Genesis 2 isn't really the most important verse when it comes to environmentalism.
Genesis 7, 8, and 9 are.
God didn't command that Noah protect and save only those species that serve a human purpose. He commanded that Noah save and protect EVERY SINGLE SPECIES on earth.
And in Genesis 9, God's covenant was not just with Noah, or humanity. But with every EVERY SINGLE SPECIES on earth. And God further said there would be an accounting for every single species.
Put two and two together. What do you think it means when God put humans over the animals but also said that his covenant extends to all the species on earth and commanded that every single species be protected? Do you think he made an exception for the Spotted Owl? Or the Northern Right Whale? Or the Kemp Ridley sea turtle? Because those species happen to be inconvenient to protect? Or because protecting them will cut someone's profits?
My question is this. Why is this not a tier 1 issue for Christianity but belief in the Trinity is?
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
That is a reasonable question Ken. Without the benefit of much thought, I would point out that my belief is in Jesus and the new covenant he revealed. That is why I hold previous covenants (Adam, Noah, national Israel) in lower position. Hebrews tells God spoke in many times and prophets but in these last days he has spoken through his son.
barnhart wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:05 pm
That is a reasonable question Ken. Without the benefit of much thought, I would point out that my belief is in Jesus and the new covenant he revealed. That is why I hold previous covenants (Adam, Noah, national Israel) in lower position. Hebrews tells God spoke in many times and prophets but in these last days he has spoken through his son.
My larger point is that I don't think that specific doctrines or dogma are exclusively the most important (tier 1) distinguishing features of Christianity.
Dogma is important if you want to distinguish Christianity from Islam or Mormonism. Of if you want to distinguish Lutherans from Methodists. But dogma is not the focus of Jesus' teachings.
As for Old Testament vs. New Testament teachings? It seems to me that many Christians (including many here on this form) are pretty arbitrary when it comes to which Old Testament teachings to center on. Corporal punishment is pretty central to a lot of conservative Christian theology when it comes to child rearing and that is strictly an Old Testament teaching. Likewise, the centrality of anti-LGBT and anti-trans sentiment in conservative Christianity is largely based on Old Testament teachings. Especially the current anti-trans movement. That seems entirely based on Genesis. Don't tell me that isn't a tier 1 issue for conservative Christians when entire denominations are breaking apart over it.
I understand Matty's point in this thread. He is sorting out dogma into higher or lower tiers. I am simply disagreeing with the notion that when it comes to actually defining Christianity, that it is dogma that constitutes the "mountains" as opposed to the actual teachings of Jesus and the commandments of God.
Last edited by Ken on Sat May 04, 2024 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Nomad wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 3:26 pm
I read an article a long time ago by Al Mohler called "Theological Triage" where he broke it down into 3 different "Triages or Tiers...
Triage 1: this would be what would differentiate a Christian from a non-Christian. Like belief in Jesus as our Lord in Savior.
Triage 2: would be things that differentiate us from other churches. Like sprinkling vs immersion baptism. Or infant vs believers baptism. Maybe headcovering or headcovering styles...
Triage 3: were the things that would differentiate us from our brothers we worship with in the same church. Like Amillinnialism vs. Premillenialism...or other eschatology issues.
Yes, I've read that. Gavin Ortlund has talked about theological triage too, and written a book on it. I haven't read it yet.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
barnhart wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:05 pm
That is a reasonable question Ken. Without the benefit of much thought, I would point out that my belief is in Jesus and the new covenant he revealed. That is why I hold previous covenants (Adam, Noah, national Israel) in lower position. Hebrews tells God spoke in many times and prophets but in these last days he has spoken through his son.
My larger point is that I don't think that specific doctrines or dogma are exclusively the most important (tier 1) distinguishing features of Christianity.
Dogma is important if you want to distinguish Christianity from Islam or Mormonism. Of if you want to distinguish Lutherans from Methodists. But dogma is not the focus of Jesus' teachings.
As for Old Testament vs. New Testament teachings? It seems to me that many Christians (including many here on this form) are pretty arbitrary when it comes to which Old Testament teachings to center on. Corporal punishment is pretty central to a lot of conservative Christian theology when it comes to child rearing and that is strictly an Old Testament teaching. Likewise, the centrality of any-LGBT and anti-trans sentiment in conservative Christianity is largely based on Old Testament teachings. Especially the current anti-trans movement. That seems entirely based on Genesis. Don't tell me that isn't a tier 1 issue for conservative Christians when entire denominations are breaking apart over it.
I understand Matty's point in this thread. He is sorting out dogma into higher or lower tiers. I am simply disagreeing with the notion that when it comes to actually defining Christianity, that it is dogma that constitutes the "mountains" as opposed to the actual teachings of Jesus and the commandments of God.
First, I won't dissuade you from your position partly because it has a lot truth in it (the inconsistencies of of new covenant believers dipping into old covenant values to lend moral support for a program of social rule). But if you want to understand what I consider an Anabaptist position, you must turn your mind to consider that Jesus is the creator who became human, lived, taught and died to fill the cosmic roles of the redeemer. Once you have crossed that bridge it is only natural to accept his teaching and adopt his worldview, which includes a surprisingly literal take on the Hebrew scriptures.
barnhart wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:05 pm
That is a reasonable question Ken. Without the benefit of much thought, I would point out that my belief is in Jesus and the new covenant he revealed. That is why I hold previous covenants (Adam, Noah, national Israel) in lower position. Hebrews tells God spoke in many times and prophets but in these last days he has spoken through his son.
My larger point is that I don't think that specific doctrines or dogma are exclusively the most important (tier 1) distinguishing features of Christianity.
Dogma is important if you want to distinguish Christianity from Islam or Mormonism. Of if you want to distinguish Lutherans from Methodists. But dogma is not the focus of Jesus' teachings.
As for Old Testament vs. New Testament teachings? It seems to me that many Christians (including many here on this form) are pretty arbitrary when it comes to which Old Testament teachings to center on. Corporal punishment is pretty central to a lot of conservative Christian theology when it comes to child rearing and that is strictly an Old Testament teaching. Likewise, the centrality of any-LGBT and anti-trans sentiment in conservative Christianity is largely based on Old Testament teachings. Especially the current anti-trans movement. That seems entirely based on Genesis. Don't tell me that isn't a tier 1 issue for conservative Christians when entire denominations are breaking apart over it.
I understand Matty's point in this thread. He is sorting out dogma into higher or lower tiers. I am simply disagreeing with the notion that when it comes to actually defining Christianity, that it is dogma that constitutes the "mountains" as opposed to the actual teachings of Jesus and the commandments of God.
First, I won't dissuade you from your position partly because it has a lot truth in it (the inconsistencies of of new covenant believers dipping into old covenant values to lend moral support for a program of social rule). But if you want to understand what I consider an Anabaptist position, you must turn your mind to consider that Jesus is the creator who became human, lived, taught and died to fill the cosmic roles of the redeemer. Once you have crossed that bridge it is only natural to accept his teaching and adopt his worldview, which includes a surprisingly literal take on the Hebrew scriptures.
Ultimately this subthread arose from my response to Matty's argument that liberals have no tier-1 issues while conservative have too many. I simply argued that I think conservatives and liberals simply disagree on what they think the most important tier-1 issues actually are. Creation care was simply one example.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Sudsy wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 10:31 amIf I understand you correctly, your and my understanding of who is our neighbour is quite different. Those who killed for what they deemed to be a greater cause in war was not killing their neighbour, imo. Those verses you used I would not apply them to all people in wars as many have no real hatred towards those they are killing and if they surrender we read many stories of how they treat them well. And stories like on Christmas day when soldiers would take a day off and join the 'enemy' to celebrate together. Does this make sense to you of people who are supposedly hating and trying to stop each other from advancing their purposes? The good that those who fought against Hitler was to stop him from killing many innocent people. Yes, it was not good for those who get killed in the process but it can be good for all those who were saved from being killed, should the killing not occur. Sometimes called 'the greater good'.
Just saying your view of who is my neighbour, imo, is not relevant to participating in wars. My neighbour is someone I come in contact with throughout my life in my local area. But my main issue had to do with what is considered a 'mountain' issue and it would appear some, perhaps most, Anabaptists appear to make this a salvation issue, although most of professing Christians do not but do have some specific boundaries on when killing could be justified.
Sudsy, I realize you have repeatedly disagreed on this forum with the Anabaptist hermeneutic RE nonresistance as a direct outworking of Jesus' teachings and examples, but I find myself compelled to share a quote from Peter Reidemann (Anabaptist leader from early/mid-1500s) that I have on a sticky note here on my computer; it offers a good elucidation of what Anabaptist Christians have historically and (for the most part) contemporarily consider to be an absolutely foundational position (ie. a mountain, not molehill) for Christians committed to following the teachings of Jesus:
Someone might say, ‘It is necessary to use force because of wicked people.’ We have already answered this by saying that the power of the sword has passed to the heathen for the punishment of their evildoers. That is not our concern. Paul says, ‘What have I to do with judging evildoers?’ No Christian can be a ruler in worldly society. Peter Riedemann, Confession of Faith
I realize I've also said this before, but I believe it bears repeating here (even if only for others who may read this later) - the use of a "greater good" argument or logic to justify Christians engaging in violence and killing against others is abhorrent to us as Anabaptist Christians for a variety of reasons. It actually seems more honest to call it "the Lesser Sacrifice" rather than "the Greater Good", considering how often we fail to address the fact that in order to have a greater good situation, it means we are willing to sacrifice something (or someone) we consider lesser, in order to achieve that perceived greater good. That may be a post of its own, though...
